1. Contribution - high interest stakeholders
1.1. High influence
1.1.1. Sponsors
1.1.1.1. FBOs with limited financial capacity (See link: page 5)
1.1.1.1.1. Sharing resources/infrastructure through close associations between FBOs and larger more formal organisations (See link: page 50)
1.1.1.1.2. Setting up projects as a separate entity from the FBO [funding benefits] (See link: page 66)
1.1.1.2. Strategic lead not seen as a responsibility of any particular group Ambiguity is tolerated on a day-to-day basis (See link: pages 50-51)
1.1.1.2.1. Having the right people at the helm (See link: page 50)
1.1.1.3. Steering group set up with unclear remit (See link: page 50)
1.1.1.3.1. A checklist for good practice in partnership (See link)
1.1.2. Blockers
1.1.2.1. FBOs not wishing to engage in case they compromise their values (See link: pages 3, 4 & 7)
1.1.2.1.1. Not discussing irrelevant issues [e.g. moral stances on an homosexuality] (See link: page 52)
1.1.2.1.2. FBO leaders leading by example by volunteering in partnership activities (See link: page 30)
1.1.2.2. FBOs reluctant to be involved due to a bad previous experience (See link: page 7)
1.1.2.2.1. Key principles for engaging with FBOs (See link: pages 2-3)
1.1.2.2.2. Councils/Borough employ a full-time worker to work with FBOs (See link: page 57)
1.1.2.3. Slow and continuous process of engagement lasting years (See link: page 11)
1.1.2.4. Perception/fear that FBOs engage in religious proselytising in delivery of services (See link: page 7)
1.1.2.4.1. (Also see link pages 11 & 50)
1.1.2.5. Perception that FBOs don't want to work in partnership or be accountable (see link: page 11)
1.1.2.5.1. Faith forums can promote joint working (See link: page 58)
1.2. Low influence
1.2.1. Beneficiaries
1.2.1.1. Under-promise and over-deliver (See link: page 16)
1.2.2. Victims
1.2.2.1. partnership-working is time-consuming, and a precarious activity with uncertain outcomes (See link: page 23)
1.2.2.1.1. Developing an enabling infrastructure and beneficial outcomes (See link: page 1)
2. Contribution - low interest stakeholders
2.1. High Influence
2.1.1. Positive influencers
2.1.1.1. FBOs exist in a parallel universe to mainstream voluntary & community sector and engagement is not close [apart from Church of England] (See link: pages 70-71)
2.1.1.1.1. (Also see link: page 49)
2.1.1.2. FBO's are not aware that Local Infrastructure Organisations (LIOs) exist (See link: page 6)
2.1.1.2.1. Attending FBOs' events (See links: page 6)
2.1.1.3. FBOs operate 24/7 informally, not promoting their work (See link: page 22)
2.1.1.3.1. An acceptance of the informality, diversity and flexibility of management practices, rather than insisting on formal management models (See link: page 112)
2.1.1.4. FBOs have limited links with local Councils [Islington - just 4% of FBOs] (See link: page 51)
2.1.1.4.1. Identifying opportunities for involving other agencies [e.g. police] (See link: page 25)
2.1.1.4.2. Faith forums can influence the strategic direction of councils (See link: page 58)
2.1.2. Negative influencers
2.1.2.1. Potential clash with equal opportunities issues and funders requirements(See link: page 9)
2.2. Low influence
2.2.1. Bystanders
2.2.1.1. Isolation from similar groups (See link: page 53)
3. Commitment
3.1. Achievement
3.1.1. FBOs not wishing to engage in case they compromise their values (See link: pages 3 & 7)
3.1.1.1. A willingness to work in partnership based on a concern for the community overriding everything else (See link: page 32)
3.2. Status/Influence
3.3. Social/affiliation
3.4. Safety
3.4.1. Local involving organisations misunderstand and mistrust FBOs (See link: page 10)
3.4.1.1. Councils/Borough employ a full-time worker to work with FBOs (See link: page 57)
3.4.1.1.1. Faith forums can promote joint working (See link: page 58)
3.4.2. Perception/fear that FBOs engage in religious proselytising in delivery of services (See link: page 7)
3.4.2.1. (Also see link page 11)
3.4.2.1.1. NB Those involved in FBOs seek to 'do God's work' rather than engage in religious proselytising (See Link: page 68)
3.4.3. FBOs reluctant to be involved due to a bad previous experience (See link: page 7)
3.4.3.1. Councils/Borough employ a full-time worker to work with FBOs (See link: page 57)
3.4.4. FBOs find it difficult to express values in a secular context for fear of sounding 'a bit weird' (See link: page 48)
3.5. Practicality
3.5.1. Practical barriers caused by cultural faith differences (See link: page 52)
3.5.1.1. Develop women-only activities (See link: page 52)
3.5.1.2. Undertake further research on roles of men and women (See link: page 72)
3.5.2. FBOs with limited financial capacity (See link: page 5)
3.5.3. partnership-working is time-consuming, and a precarious activity with uncertain outcomes (See link: page 23)
4. Competence
4.1. Skills
4.1.1. FBOs find it difficult to express values in a secular context for fear of sounding 'a bit weird' (See link: page 48)
4.1.2. Limited fundraising skills & networking skills (See link: page 50)
4.1.3. Strategic lead not seen as a responsibility of any particular group. Ambiguity is tolerated on a day-to-day basis (See link: pages 50-51)
4.1.3.1. A checklist for good practice in partnership (See link)
4.1.3.1.1. Develop ‘win-win’ situations
4.1.3.1.2. Agree a shared goal and clear outcomes
4.1.3.1.3. Agree a lead agency – for specific times and tasks
4.1.3.1.4. Produce an information strategy – a plan to communicate
4.1.3.1.5. Clarify who is funding which parts of the work
4.1.3.1.6. Adapt to change
4.1.3.1.7. Regular management and stakeholder meetings
4.1.3.1.8. Monitor work done and also involve the whole partnership to evaluate process
4.1.4. Informal faith-based groups do not respond in the same way as other groups, which is a learning gap for researchers (See link: page 59)
4.1.4.1. Councils/Borough employ a full-time worker to work with FBOs (See link: page 57)
4.1.4.2. Flexible approaches to volunteer-involvement (See link: page 26)
4.1.5. Problems with more strategic issues. E.g. dealing with funders (See link: page 50)
4.2. Knowledge
4.2.1. Misunderstanding of FBOs from secular and local infrastructure organisations (See link: page 26)
4.2.1.1. FBOs providing space for community organisations to run projects (See link: pages 66-67)
4.2.1.1.1. Projects also benefit from involvement from FBO's volunteers (previous link: page 67)
4.2.1.1.2. Providing 'non-holy' spaces to run projects/hold meetings (previous link: page 70)
4.2.1.2. Tailoring approaches to engaging with different faith traditions (See link: page 22)
4.2.1.3. Embracing how voluntary activity is organised in different FBOs (See link: page 42)
4.2.1.4. Reflecting type of voluntary activity undertaken in different FBOs (See link: page 40)
4.2.1.5. Work with faith-based forums and umbrella bodies to develop knowledge and trust (see link: page 16)
4.2.1.6. Visiting FBOs and learning about their faiths (See link: page 12)
4.2.2. Lack of guidance in application of religious life in service-delivery (See link: page 16)
4.2.3. lack of guidance in how to approach equal opportunities issues (See link: page 9)
4.2.4. Practical barriers caused by cultural faith differences (See link: page 52)
4.2.5. Challenges negotiating local government procedures (See link: page 50)
4.2.6. Isolation from similar groups (See link: page 53)